DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Incredible Hulk, The (US - BD)

Gabe isn't tricked by the addition of the word 'incredible' in the new Hulk's title

Feature

The Hulk is back. Well, he’s back, but it’s a different Hulk. No, it’s still Bruce Banner, he’s just played by Edward Norton this time. He’s hiding out from the army in Latin America. I know that’s where the Eric Bana Hulk was hiding out at the end of the other movie, but it’s different this time. I know it was the army last time too, but this time the army is run by William Hurt instead of Sam Elliot. Yeah it’s the same character, but this time he’s generally angrier. No, Bruce Banner’s dad is still dead. Well that’s not entirely true, in this movie he never existed. No, I don’t want to get into some kind of existential discussion about the Hulk’s dad; it’s just that this movie features a different villain. You know what, we’re just gonna cut to the review, okay?

I’ll start by warning the reader that I’m finding myself unable to review Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk without comparing it to Ang Lee’s Hulk, or without going into a few minor plot spoilers. If you’re unhappy with this approach please feel free to skip to the A/V and extras sections.

The second I heard that Marvel Studios was going to more or less ignore Ang Lee’s Hulk because its generally intellectual and art filmish tendencies didn’t bring in enough money the first time around, I was upset. When I read press interviews and watched made for TV EPKs featuring interviewees that either ignored, or made fun of Lee’s film, I got a little angry (and you wouldn’t like Gabe when he’s angry *Editor*). It wasn’t just that this was an insult to Lee and the few of us that actually liked the film, it was also blatantly unprofessional and frustratingly childish. My view of the film was unfortunately coloured by this reaction.

I like the Ang Lee film a lot, more than even Richard Donner’s Superman films. Even Lee's many detractors have to give the director some credit for doing something different with the medium. Lee’s mix of intellectual plotting and brazenly cartoony and abstract visuals are still refreshingly brave in mainstream filmmaking. Visually speaking the film also touches on Mario Bava and James Whale’s gothic horrors, which is in keeping with Stan Lee’s original Jekyll and Hyde meets Frankenstein concept. Five years later it still looks and acts differently than just about every other big budget super hero flick out there.

I’m unconcerned with minor spoilers in this review because this new The Incredible Hulk appears to have been crafted with a the assumption that the audience wanted to know exactly where the story was heading at any given moment. There really aren’t any surprises in the ‘A’ plot, at least not for anyone that knows anything about the main character. If you’ve read the comic, seen the ‘70s show, seen the animated series, seen Lee’s film, or any other superhero movie, you probably aren’t going to find many surprises in the basic narrative of this version of Hulk. This treatment is obviously directly responding to Lee’s film, which was considered by the masses to be too thoughtful (which is pretty sad when you stop to think about it). The response is understandable—Lee’s film was occasionally needlessly cryptic—but Marvel’s reaction strikes as placating, and frankly a bit insulting.

Incredible Hulk, for better or worse, is treated like both a reboot and a sequel. The basic structure follows the same lines of the second and third acts of the original film, from the standpoint that Banner is dealing with repressing the Hulk and running away from Ross’ army. The events take place in what is assumed to be a later period in the characters’ lives, which points towards a sequel. The script also hammers home the difficulty of living as a superhero, and presents a period (however brief) where the superhero is given a chance at living without the powers, but ultimately discovers he needs them to protect the people he loves. These are both popular, and entirely too common themes for superhero sequels.

One thing I neglected to make a big enough point of in my review of Iron Man was how happy I was to finally see a superhero embracing his ‘powers’, and the attention that comes with the lifestyle. The angst and hardships that so often accompany superhero features might be the bit of commonality that eventually nauseates audiences out of the theatres. All three Spider-Man and X-Men films, both Hellboy films, both Punisher films, Superman 2 and Superman Returns, and every Batman film, despite quality of the final products, deal aggressively in the depressing elements of superheroship. The adversity facing superheroes humanizes them, but it’s becoming a little stale, at least to this fan.

The Incredible Hulk’s most intriguing element from a pre-release standpoint was the inclusion of wild card actor/writer Edward Norton. A side by side actor comparison between Norton and Lee’s Hulk, Eric Bana, can be a sore point for some cineastes. For the most part younger film fans seem to see Norton as somewhat infallible, sometimes even calling him the Marlon Brando of our generation. American History X aside, I’ve often seen Norton play the same character in many of his films. It’s a good character (see Fight Club), but as the consummate straight man, the character can wear thin. Bana also plays similar character in the majority of his films (the sweet natured but intense guy), but his general range is more impressive to my mind, and I feel he's successfully carried some not very good movies on his own ( Troy, for example). Despite my personal take on his possibly limited acting ability, Norton’s inclusion with this project was a good sign for the script. Or so I thought. I don’t think Norton’s post-production battles with Marvel are exactly news anymore, and the final cut exhibits almost none of the deep seeded character explorations Norton original went on about when he was brought on to the project (more on that in the extras section).

The Incredible Hulk runs full bore on a full tank, and Leterrier is in full control of his grandiose action. Iron Man and The Dark Knight are both overall stronger films, but The Incredible Hulk features some remarkably stronger action scenes. Though I don’t subscribe to the belief that Lee’s film was somehow not action packed, Leterrier’s action is easier to savour on a visceral level. The key here is diversity. The first Hulk-out and preceding foot chase work well on a more ‘realistic’ and gritty level, like Casino Royale and The Bourne Ultimatum. The army vs. Hulk scene eases us into the more comic booky violence of the last act, with a good sense of geography and movement. I am especially fond of the Super-Soldier vs. Hulk moments, which helped me visually understand what filmmakers can do with Captain America in the future. The final scene of Hulk vs. Abomination action devolves into two boring CG creatures hitting each other pretty quickly, but the first half of the fight, where less is more, is fantastically crafted.

The finely tuned action alone wouldn’t have been enough to make me get over my stupid problems with the studio ignoring Lee’s superior feature, but the tale of Major Emil Blonsky’s transformation into the Abomination, the accidental birth of Spoiler the Leader, and Tony Stark’s cameo were all enough to force me to get over myself. Though both Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are flawed films they are exciting first steps in the first ever greater filmic superhero universe (save the Tromaverse). The little pieces of information concerning this greater universe are among the most exciting Easter Eggs I’ve ever seen, and ultimately enough to make me revisit Leterrier’s film when the time comes.

Video

Generally speaking this 1080p, 2.35:1 transfer is as highly detailed and full figured as expected, but there are a few noticeable flaws in the execution. Leterrier doesn’t go for the more literal, panelled comic book representation of Ang Lee’s film, but he and DP Peter Menzies Jr. still manage to reproduce an effective sort of four colour reality. The disc finely reproduces the garish warm hues of Brazil without blooming, the lush greens of Virginia, and the cool blues and greys of various labs with just enough kick to push things into the realms of comic book reproduction. Skin tones are a little on the red side for my taste, but overall the colours are incredible.

Leterrier seems to prefer to slightly soften many of the film’s human to human sequences (perhaps in an attempt to make things look a bit more like the ‘70s series), but details are still very realistically rendered, and in close-up feature almost zero noise. Wide shots, especially the action packed daylight sections, are aimed a little sharper, but not entirely flawless. There are noticeable compression artefacts, including edge enhancement on background details, general noise in darker shots (though the black levels are spectacular), and subtle blocking during the more fiery explosions. I vaguely recall more texture and grain on the big screen. I also didn’t notice Tim Roth’s obvious CG enhancements on the big screen either. I suppose these are the ‘downfalls’ of hi-def.

Audio

There are some big 'show off your system' moments on this DTS-HD Master Audio track. The whole of the Hulk vs. Army sequence is impressive, but the sonic cannon bit is a regular 5.1 party. This mix isn’t about subtly, it’s about the ‘Kapows’ and ‘Baddams’ of a comic book property, and I’m positive that if comic books could stick sound effects on the pages behind your head too, they would. The word balloons, I mean dialogue is clear, and positioned appropriately according to the character. Technically speaking my player does downgrade Master Audio tracks a bit, but this is one I can’t image dealing with anything anymore bombastic in my relatively tiny viewing room. The bass track alone just about rolled my DVDs off the shelf.

The overall mix is extremely tight, and very well balanced, with the exception of the musical score, which is often muffled and small. The non-action cues are plenty loud and wide in scope, but when the monsters start hitting each other I could barely make out all the brassy horns and violent strings, except in the rear channels. Craig Armstrong’s score is actually very effective, and though I wouldn’t call it ‘innovative’, it features a mostly novel approach to the usual chases and hero moments.

Extras

Extras begin with an amusing, informative, and consistent commentary track featuring director Louis Leterrier and the film’s chief scene stealer Tim Roth. Leterrier’s commentary goes well beyond the description of a given shot, or even how a given shot was created, he’s often sure to give satisfying reasons for the existence of the shot. Roth, who has a few directing credits under his belt, is an amusing and technically proficient commentator as well. Roth also brings up a good point about the Abomination’s missing ‘bits’. Between the two of them listeners aren’t going to miss any Easter eggs (and I missed a few). There’s a small acknowledgement of Ang Lee’s film, and a few mentions of deal with the reboot/sequel status, but for the most part the discussion is aimed at the new film.

Under the U-Control menu are five features, which are (mostly) scene specific, on-screen options. Unfortunately I still have a Profile 1.0 player, and there hasn’t been a firmware upgrade for PiP options. The flat out Picture in Picture option was entirely lost to me, as was the comic book gallery, but I was eventually able to get the ‘Scene Explorer’ option to work. ‘Scene Explorer’ allows the viewer to switch between four different angles: storyboards, the clean plate, two levels of visual effects, and the final film. The ‘Thunderbolt Files’ are a character file option, and the ‘Animated Comic’ option is a link to a Flash animated sequence from ‘Hulk: Gray’, a semi-recent comic reboot by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale comic, the same team that brought the world ‘Batman: The Long Halloween’, which was a major influence on The Dark Knight. This extra is available elsewhere on the disc as well.

The most exciting section of the disc is the deleted scenes section. As mentioned, there was a lot of well publicized post-production bickering between Norton and the producers, with Leterrier apparently caught in the middle. Well, it sounded exciting on paper. First up is an alternate opening (in HD) that features Bruce Banner taking a trip to the North Pole, which has no apparent bearing on the rest of the plot, which is probably why it was removed. The only use of the scene is a blurry little chunk of something in the ice Hulk crushes, which is rumoured to be a frozen Captain America. There are twenty three other scenes, all in SD, and slightly gummy anamorphic widescreen. The scenes start with six minutes of Banner tooling around Brazil, General Ross whining about Banner trying to cure himself, some fun extended information about the ‘Super Soldier’ program, Banner tooling around the college, Banner chatting with Betty and Betty’s new beau (you saw some of it in the trailer), Banner admiring Betty’s flower (ahem), Banner and Betty saying goodbye, General Ross acting all angsty, Betty and Banner pillow talkin’ and jewelry hockin’, Blonski acting insubordinate, and a little coda for Betty and her beau (poor Ty Burrell was almost entirely cut out of the film altogether). All in all the scenes run almost forty three minutes, and though they feature some nice character moments, they would’ve destroyed the film’s pacing.

‘The Making of Incredible’ is a pretty speedy, thirty minute behind the scenes featurette. As per the norm the doc is a mix of raw behind the scenes footage, interview footage (likely taken before the theatrical release, including Norton), and scenes from the film, editing into sections concerning pre-production, casting, filming, special effects, post-production, and so on. I am again surprised to hear the producers and director referring to Ang Lee’s film in a relatively positive light after all the pre-release trash talking. Most of the actors and Leterrier admit to confusion concerning the reboot vs. sequel status when approached for the project.

‘Becoming the Hulk’ concerns the specifics of the design and production of this new Hulk, which generally looks like an angrier and lumpier version of Ang Lee’s version of the character. I’m personally fine with the re-invisionment, though I’m surprised that the overall ‘realism’ of the special effect isn’t really any more impressive than the original version. I’m usually great about suspending my disbelief when it comes to digital effects, and the kind of waxy look of the character didn’t pull me out of the film or anything, I was just expecting a bigger difference, perhaps out of ignorance. The facial subtleties of the new character are an improvement, and the new mo-cap technology section of the featurette is fascinating. These nine minutes also offer us the most candid look at Norton’s involvement with the process. ‘Becoming the Abomination’ is the obvious follow up, putting a more focus on the full body mo-cap.

‘Anatomy of a Hulk-Out’ is a three part featurette examining the making of the film’s three Hulk-Outs (‘The Bottling Plant’, ‘On Campus’ and ‘In Harlem’). These feature a little more raw footage than the other featurettes, and this footage is a little more technically minded concerning stunts and practical effects. All together these run another twenty seven minutes.

On the side of not-so-special features are a BD-Live option and a digital copy version of the film.

Overall

I’m really struggling with what score to give the final film. The tightness of the editing, the action, and the film’s spot in what will soon be a larger universe, all point towards a solid 7/10, but the generally disappointing plotting turns my enthusiasm down to a more realistic 6/10. I hate this part of the reviewing process because I know most people don’t actually read my review, just the final number, so those of you nice enough to read this bit know I’m actually giving the film both scores, because I have a feeling I’ll continue to slide between the two for several years. This second viewing was actually more enjoyable then the first, but I still prefer Ang Lee’s weirdo art house take. This Blu-ray disc features some very minor A/V problems, and a solid assortment of extras, including a load of deleted footage, and a very entertaining commentary track.

*Note: The images on this page are not representative of the Blu-ray release.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

What are you calling me a little girl? Getting busted on by an English guy is confusing. Though handbag is pretty funny, we tend to go a bit more gritty here in the states. I would prefer bearded clam, or something with a bit more bite the next time if you could.

Jesus Christ Billy, how old are you? Seriously. Because you are coming across like some kid from IMDB. Worse than any 6 year old. Going out there to find a review to trump MY review. Which is moot. Because I merely said the review from DVDTalk matched how I felt. I didn't say the NY Times review of "The Incredible Hulk" was great. But it certainly was compared to the one you threw in my face. They rated "The Hulk" 1/5 and "The Incredible Hulk" 3/5. Are you that thick!? The critics from DVDTalk are not some high school paper. And I'm not going to dignify the rest of your childish response. Because I've covered this enough. I didn't like "The Hulk" (or "Hulk" ). Thought it looked pretty good, but not great on BD. Still a pretty bad film. Thought "The Incredible Hulk" was way better. And looked amazing on BD.

Rob Clark wrote: Thanks, bro, for that condescending response. And for cherry picking a bad review out of the, what, 200 posted reviews of the film that can be found on rottentomatoes. Just because you probably haven't heard of DVDTalk doesn't make them "obscure". But nice try. Also, you just can't stand the fact that you are in the minority here. Someone who liked Lee's "Hulk". And someone who hated "The Incredible Hulk". As I pointed out in the many links, many posts ago. And oh, btw, here's what A.O Scott said about your precious "Hulk". You know, from the NY Times? "Incredibly long, incredibly tedious, incredibly turgid." Rating 1/5

And oh, meant to add...A.O. Scott (of the New York Times) gave "The Incredible Hulk" a 3/5 rating.

So I'm "cherry picking" a "bad review" as you call it? Then you quote the same review as 3/5 being a positive? I never said I hated the new Hulk, I just said it wasn't that great. I'm not the one acting like a 6 year old. I didn't post an obnoxious review that reads like it came from a high school paper to try and pass it off as "see! alot of people share my opinion." So you can quote fan reviews from rotten tomatoes all you like. Fill the board with other people's opinions. I posted that review to show you what a professional review is (since you don't seem to know one when you see one.) Not to reflect my own point of view. I stand by everything I said. Go ahead and try and quote me as saying something different, can you say the same? I'm sure everyone is impressed by your rotten tomates and IMDB references. I am proud to be in the minority of people who liked the first Hulk more than the second. I am also not a fan of American Idol, which is also a minority opinion in the country. I'm fine with that. The majority point of view is rarely very thought provoking. Anyway, I'm done discussing this with you, it's a waste of my time. You seem like the kind of person who needs to get the last word in though, so knock yourself out. Enjoy your bad fan reviews, reality TV and deep fried pepper poppers. I'll just think for myself.

So which one of Ed Norton's entourage wrote this love letter? Sounds more like a paid endorsement than an honest review IMO. The only thing missing is Gene Schalit's tagline at the end.

Oh grow up. Just because you loved the first movie so much.

That's funny, I'm not the one posting obscure reviews that only reflect my point of view. Check the other post on the page bro, I'm not the only one who found your sad little review laughable. I'm not the one taking it personally. You seem to be the one who can't let it go. There was some talk earlier about subjectivity, which your "review" lacked completely. Here's a review of your favorite Hulk movie which isn't just an Ed Norton apple polishing. And it's also by a reputable source, perhaps you've heard of them:

Thanks, bro, for that condescending response. And for cherry picking a bad review out of the, what, 200 posted reviews of the film that can be found on rottentomatoes. Just because you probably haven't heard of DVDTalk doesn't make them "obscure". But nice try. Also, you just can't stand the fact that you are in the minority here. Someone who liked Lee's "Hulk". And someone who hated "The Incredible Hulk". As I pointed out in the many links, many posts ago. And oh, btw, here's what A.O Scott said about your precious "Hulk". You know, from the NY Times? "Incredibly long, incredibly tedious, incredibly turgid." Rating 1/5

So which one of Ed Norton's entourage wrote this love letter? Sounds more like a paid endorsement than an honest review IMO. The only thing missing is Gene Schalit's tagline at the end.

Oh grow up. Just because you loved the first movie so much.

That's funny, I'm not the one posting obscure reviews that only reflect my point of view. Check the other post on the page bro, I'm not the only one who found your sad little review laughable. I'm not the one taking it personally. You seem to be the one who can't let it go. There was some talk earlier about subjectivity, which your "review" lacked completely. Here's a review of your favorite Hulk movie which isn't just an Ed Norton apple polishing. And it's also by a reputable source, perhaps you've heard of them:

Wonderfully entertaining comic book movie. The Ang Lee/Louise Leterrier comparison is a fun conversation but ultimately irrelevant. This is a fast-paced, well-acted bowl of action popcorn. I am very fond of Lee's version, but if I'm having peeps over and firing up the Blu-Ray, it's this Hulk that's getting the spin. Highly recommended.

Ha, I'm one of those guys that loves Edward Norton. I think he's an extremely talented actor. However, I actually found him very underwhelming in this film, and I wasn't too impressed with him. I mean, he did a fine job, just not what I was expecting. Overall, the film was awesome. It was kinda cheesy, but awesome. Good review.

I'll rank this movie higher than Iron Man. Only because, it had to surmount a horrible launch of this film in 2003. In my humble opinion it carried out a great sequel to the first, and made it its own movie. Hulk franchise has now earned some respect after a mesirable performance in 03. Kudos to Ed and the gang.

Billy Black wrote: Rob Clark wrote: Did I *say* that this was on par with "The Dark Knight" et al? No. I said it was a fun and enjoyable summer movie. And eclipsed Lee's movie in every aspect. And for the record, no, I wasn't bored with the chase scenes in the streets. Name ONE exciting scene in "The Hulk". Which, btw, I just watched again on Blu-Ray. I only wanted to see how good the picture quality was. I found the film to be just as sub par the second time around.

Since The Dark Knight came out a month after, I'd say you did put it on par with said TDK. 8.5/10 may be your opinion, but that's a very generous score for a movie that was poorly acted. I noticed you didn't disagree with my assesment of Liv Tyler, and how could you. There's no reason to get testy, and a 4/10 is a serious low ball. Hulk had several very sweet and memorable action scenes. His battle with the tanks and helicoptors in the desert were tight. Even his destruction of the lab had more umph than most of Incredible Hulk. I'll even give you that Nolte was seriously over the top. But More than Tim Roth? Perhaps, but I really don't want to get into a "My Hulk can beat up your Hulk" conversation. I'm not sure how your scale works, but it seems to me an 8.5 out of 10 should rate pretty high. How would you rate The Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Iron Man? Just for the record.

Billy, please stop dissecting my comments and comparing my rating to other summer movies. Yes 8.5/10 is high. And I already explained why I gave it that. How do I rate those other films you mentioned? Well, I'd give "The Dark Knight" a 10/10, "Iron Man" 9.5/10, "Batman Begins"? I didn't enjoy that much. At least the first hour. It felt like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Batman. Just way too much time spent on Bruce Wayne's training, etc. So I'd say maybe a 7/10. The last hour? 10/10 for sure. What are my other high rated films this year? My favorite of the year is "In Bruges" (10/10), "Hamlet 2" (10/10), "Tell No One" (10/10), "Wall-E" (10/10). Others in 2008? "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" (9.5/10), "The Bank Job" 9.5/10, "Choke" 9.5/10, "The Orphanage" 9.5/10. And those are just a few examples. Back to your other comments (and Chris). Sure, Liv Tyler didn't exactly ignite the screen. But she didn't have much to work with. And as beautiful and talented Jennifer Connelly is, she looked completely lost in her role in "The Hulk". And like she'd rather be anywhere but there. Eric Bana (who is a terrific actor) came across stiff. There was absolutely no chemistry between those two either. Nick Nolte was TERRIBLE! The only person I liked was Sam Elliott. I remember when I saw this film in the theater for the very first time. I literally looked at my watch every few minutes. Because nothing was happening. With "The Incredible Hulk", the action was right out of the gate, and never let up.

Chris Gould wrote: The first film in every superhero franchise is usually a little slow. X-Men, Spider-Man, FF... not a lot happened for the first third of those films. The only superhero film that I can recall with a big action scene near the top is Blade, but that had a half way decent plot and was made for adults. Origin stories take time, and if they'd stuck with the original cast for a sequel the end result could've been a lot more cohesive.

I didn't hate this film, I'm just fairly indifferent towards it.

Well put Mr. Gould, you couldn't be more right about keeping the same cast. If they started the second moving with Banner Hulking out and smashing the cartel trying to steal supplies from that village, the action would've grabbed a hold of you immediately. Then you can get into how the US government is after him for his blood and what not. The story for Incredible just did nothing for me. Aside from the Abomination battle (which was the only thing it had over Lee's movie IMO)it was a wasted reboot.

Rob, you are completely entitled to your opinion, I just don't see what you're seeing. This movie was a serious disappointment for me. I wanted so much to like it. I wish like hell I did.

I was a HUGE fan of HULK, I really liked and enjoyed it. I have watched it on DVD many times, but for some reason, lately, I just get bored with it now. TOO MUCH, oh, I can't show my emotion, blah blah blah. Just turn green and smash the S**T out of something, PLEASE. And no real villian, what was with that ending, was Ang Lee smoking something. I honestly think if he had had a HUGE fight with the Hulk and something tangable as a villian, not some HUGE water balloon. HULK would not have been hated so much.

Now I prefer the CG Hulk to the new CG Incredible Hulk. I liked the BEEFY bulk of Ang's version. Something about the ripped, vascular new hulk I didn't like as much.

I really liked the chase threw the city in The incredible hulk, I thought it got the movie rolling and kept on going. I am looking forward to seeing it again on Green/Bluray.

It's just an opinion Rob, not a personal slight on you. I happen to agree with Billy, but I can see why others don't.

A lot of the things he mentions also bugged me. Liv Tyler was simply awful, especially with the Jennifer Connelly's Betty in mind. Seriously, she whispered all of her dialogue. Norton used to be one of my favourite actors, but like Gabe I haven't seen him in anything to remind me why for years. He was great in Fight Club and American History X, but since then not so much.

When The Incredible Hulk gets going it's a decent enough action film, in a dumb, mind-numbing sort of way, but it has none of the intriguing character development or inventive visual style of the Ang Lee film. Everyone moans about Hulk films not having enough action, but you can't just watch action non-stop without anything to break it up. People would get incredibly bored by it. You need character moments, and that's where this reboot failed for me. The chemistry between Norton and Tyler wasn't there, and Hurt was just Mr. Angry. Only Roth did anything with the material, but at the end of the day it still just came down to two CGI creations fighting (as did Iron Man, but Downey Jr. made that film).

The first film in every superhero franchise is usually a little slow. X-Men, Spider-Man, FF... not a lot happened for the first third of those films. The only superhero film that I can recall with a big action scene near the top is Blade, but that had a half way decent plot and was made for adults. Origin stories take time, and if they'd stuck with the original cast for a sequel the end result could've been a lot more cohesive.

Rob Clark wrote: Did I *say* that this was on par with "The Dark Knight" et al? No. I said it was a fun and enjoyable summer movie. And eclipsed Lee's movie in every aspect. And for the record, no, I wasn't bored with the chase scenes in the streets. Name ONE exciting scene in "The Hulk". Which, btw, I just watched again on Blu-Ray. I only wanted to see how good the picture quality was. I found the film to be just as sub par the second time around.

Since The Dark Knight came out a month after, I'd say you did put it on par with said TDK. 8.5/10 may be your opinion, but that's a very generous score for a movie that was poorly acted. I noticed you didn't disagree with my assesment of Liv Tyler, and how could you. There's no reason to get testy, and a 4/10 is a serious low ball. Hulk had several very sweet and memorable action scenes. His battle with the tanks and helicoptors in the desert were tight. Even his destruction of the lab had more umph than most of Incredible Hulk. I'll even give you that Nolte was seriously over the top. But More than Tim Roth? Perhaps, but I really don't want to get into a "My Hulk can beat up your Hulk" conversation. I'm not sure how your scale works, but it seems to me an 8.5 out of 10 should rate pretty high. How would you rate The Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Iron Man? Just for the record.

User Ratings don't generally concern me. I thought they were wrong in '03 and time has done nothing to change my mind. If anything, the Incredible Hulk just solidifies that feeling for me. It was vogue to rag on Hulk in '03, the big beef being "how come it took so long to see the Hulk?" and as I said in my prior post, it's a time difference of less than 10 mins. Did you really enjoy all the terrible dialogue between Bruce and Betty? (and seriously, how bad was Liv Tyler?) You weren't bored by the awfully long chase scenes thru the South American streets? The movie was supposed to move quick and have lots of action. The first half of the film was neither. I will say the second half was much better, and the Abomination battle was good stuff, but for me (and really it's all opinion) this movie over promised and dramatically under delivered. I was amped for this film. I wanted it to be great. The bottom line is that it wasn't. And since I really did understand what Lee was doing and enjoy the first film, this one was a major disappointment. The only reason to do a reboot is to make a great movie and correct the mistakes from the first one. Did they make a great film here? I don't see it. Is Incredible on par with the likes of a Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron-Man or the first 2 X-Men movies? Honestly. Is that what you believe?

Did I *say* that this was on par with "The Dark Knight" et al? No. I said it was a fun and enjoyable summer movie. And eclipsed Lee's movie in every aspect. And for the record, no, I wasn't bored with the chase scenes in the streets. Name ONE exciting scene in "The Hulk". Which, btw, I just watched again on Blu-Ray. I only wanted to see how good the picture quality was. I found the film to be just as sub par the second time around.

Gabe Powers wrote: The difference between this talk back and the one under Marcus' review is interesting. I'd rate Lee's Hulk at a 7.5 or 8/10

That's a narrow margin for two films on the same topic that are so different. Kudos to you, I couldn't rate them that close. Perhaps I set my expectations too high when Norton came on board and Tim Roth as Blonsky, I just thought it would be a better movie. The disappointment afterward continued to grow as I weighed my hopes for the movie against what I came away with.

At least for Indiana Jones (which most of you hate, so much...unlike me), you have things you will ALWAYS remember, like 'nuke the fridge', or Mutt having his Tarzan moment...but with Incredible Hulk??? NOTHING.

User Ratings don't generally concern me. I thought they were wrong in '03 and time has done nothing to change my mind. If anything, the Incredible Hulk just solidifies that feeling for me. It was vogue to rag on Hulk in '03, the big beef being "how come it took so long to see the Hulk?" and as I said in my prior post, it's a time difference of less than 10 mins. Did you really enjoy all the terrible dialogue between Bruce and Betty? (and seriously, how bad was Liv Tyler?) You weren't bored by the awfully long chase scenes thru the South American streets? The movie was supposed to move quick and have lots of action. The first half of the film was neither. I will say the second half was much better, and the Abomination battle was good stuff, but for me (and really it's all opinion) this movie over promised and dramatically under delivered. I was amped for this film. I wanted it to be great. The bottom line is that it wasn't. And since I really did understand what Lee was doing and enjoy the first film, this one was a major disappointment. The only reason to do a reboot is to make a great movie and correct the mistakes from the first one. Did they make a great film here? I don't see it. Is Incredible on par with the likes of a Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron-Man or the first 2 X-Men movies? Honestly. Is that what you believe?

This movie was not the action packed thrill ride I was expecting from the previews. I thought it dragged even more than Lee's (as it had none of the thoughtfulness or character development) and for those of you who say Lee's Hulk was boring, I watched both films in a 24 hour period. The first appearance of the green meanie in Lee's is about 42 mins in, for Incredible Hulk, it was about the 38 min mark. It's not like you hit the ground running with a Hulk smashfest. And He really doesn't get to thrash until the army battle on campus (what was that? a hour in?) Overall, Norton was forgettable, Liv Tyler was terrible and William Hurt mailed it in. While Tim Roth was enjoyable, he was totally over the top at times, and the super imposing his head on the muscle man's body was totally laughable. If you were more impressed with the CGI in this movie, I don't know what to tell you. It was good in parts, but nothing to crow about. For Lee's move to be panned and this to be praised is absurd.

How is that absurd? It's the general consensus. Just look at the user ratings below. And no WAY did this version drag more than Lee's. No way.

This movie was not the action packed thrill ride I was expecting from the previews. I thought it dragged even more than Lee's (as it had none of the thoughtfulness or character development) and for those of you who say Lee's Hulk was boring, I watched both films in a 24 hour period. The first appearance of the green meanie in Lee's is about 42 mins in, for Incredible Hulk, it was about the 38 min mark. It's not like you hit the ground running with a Hulk smashfest. And He really doesn't get to thrash until the army battle on campus (what was that? a hour in?) Overall, Norton was forgettable, Liv Tyler was terrible and William Hurt mailed it in. While Tim Roth was enjoyable, he was totally over the top at times, and the super imposing his head on the muscle man's body was totally laughable. If you were more impressed with the CGI in this movie, I don't know what to tell you. It was good in parts, but nothing to crow about. For Lee's move to be panned and this to be praised is absurd.

This movie has made around $2 million more than Lee's Hulk, with a higher budget ($15 million more) than Lee's...just getting that out of the way.

This movie isn't as overall enjoyable as Iron Man, nor does it have a villain that steals the show from the 'hero' like TDK, it just has a little bit more action than 'Hulk', and it lacks any interesting characters or stories unlike Lee's. It is enjoyable, but it's not something that you will have in your mind after a while, like Joker or Tony Stark the playboy.

Norton didn't glow, neither did anybody else. I do consider this more of a sequel, so that it fits with the movie that is good (Hulk), but that's it. In the end, there was TDK and Iron Man as great superhero movies this year, and that's it.

A must buy when we get the theatrical AND extended/director's cut, but maybe that'll never happen...or when this release drops to about $20...

Haven't seen this yet but want to because regardless of the reviews it's been given, the consistent elements are that the action is very well done and it's a good set-up for things to come.

I did genuinely like Ang Lee's version and thought it was cool what he did with it. Watched it a few times now and it still feels fresh. Whether I'll prefer this 2008 version or not remains to be seen, but I'm looking forward to having a look at it.

james55011 wrote: Subjectivity? Gabe admits a lot of his review is based on his feelings about Ang Lee's version. "I’m finding myself unable to review Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk without comparing it to Ang Lee’s Hulk". What about being subjective there? If Gabe can compare one directors movie over another (wich I do not feel is in any way better) than I can judge one persons review over a movie over another. That's a fair point, but it seems like a strange reason to prefer a review (to me). I guess what I was trying to say is that I can understand people preferring a review if it's better written or more factually accurate, but not because of the writer's opinion of the main feature. I like well-crafted reviews that challenge my perception of a film, even if I ultimately disagree with them.

However, I tend to disregard reviews of the main feature if I have seen the film and concentrate on the technical aspects of the review, as that's where my interests lie and it's slightly less subjective (one would hope). I guess there's no getting away from subjectivity though, so I'll leave it before my head explodes

Subjectivity? Gabe admits a lot of his review is based on his feelings about Ang Lee's version. "I’m finding myself unable to review Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk without comparing it to Ang Lee’s Hulk". What about being subjective there? If Gabe can compare one directors movie over another (wich I do not feel is in any way better) than I can judge one persons review over a movie over another.

james55011 wrote: I prefer Marcus' review. I think Edward Norton is a great actor and DOES have a wide range of variety. I did not like Ang Lee's Hulk, it isn't a "smarter" movie it is just boring. This new movie although feels like a typical superhero movie is much more entertaining. You prefer his review because he agreed with you? Hasn't anyone ever heard of subjectivity?

I prefer Marcus' review. I think Edward Norton is a great actor and DOES have a wide range of variety. I did not like Ang Lee's Hulk, it isn't a "smarter" movie it is just boring. This new movie although feels like a typical superhero movie is much more entertaining.

Ang Lee is one of my all-time favorite directors. But "Hulk" (once called "The Hulk" ) was a huge misstep, and misfire, for him. And it is, hands down, the dullest comic book movie I have ever seen. The damn thing just dragged and dragged. Nobody could save it. Norton's "The Incredible Hulk", as Da B-Meister pointed out, is indeed 1000% better. Better action, better direction, better special effects, better cinematography, better sound and better acting. So, I'd give "Hulk" a 4/10 and "The Incredible Hulk" 8.5/10. One of the summer's best films.

I never had any major problems with Ang Lee's Hulk, except Nick Nolte. Like Indiana Jones, I also missed this in the theaters this summer. I'm immediately compelled to buy it just for Tony Stark's cameo, alone.....

some people dont read and jump to the A/V stuff? wow....i look forward to reviews of movies i liked because i enjoy reading the actual review. and considering i have a widescreen 1080i tv and buy 95% blu-ray now, its probably weird that i dont even care about the A/V stuff, that i actually do skip. cuz what can i say, i'm a review/extras w***e. lol

anyway i'm sad to see that the north american version shares the same extras as the UK one. i was hoping maybe we'd get more extras...damn. but still, this is a definate buy on blu-ray for me.....excuse me, green-ray.

Great review Gabe, and you were a bit more generous than I would have been. I found the Betty and Bruce scenes to be terribly boring and unnecessary. I too am a big fan of Lee's Hulk and found this to be the lesser movie in just about every way. I preferred the character's in Lee's (Sam Elliot blew Hurt out of the water in his portrayal of Gen. Ross IMO) and again, the Betty character was spot on in Hulk and poorly executed in the latter. (Though Jennifer Connelly could beat Liv Tyler at anything in my eyes) Well, this was far more than I planned to say, so sorry for that. Anyway, if this is a 6 or 7. Where would you put Ang Lee's Hulk?

It's all a matter of taste though. Gabe and I have often discussed our fondness for Ang Lee's Hulk, and he seems to have a similar opinion of the reboot. It's flashier, but I didn't really buy any of the actors as their respective characters (with the possible exception of Tim Roth) and at the end of it all it did turn into just another CGI duke-out. At least Lee's version did something interesting with the source material and visual style. I'll probably give this a second look at some point, but I'm no in any great rush.

I think the reason why Ang Lee's "Hulk" is so reviled is that there's too much background info on the character, glacial pacing and an awful acting turn by Nick Nolte. And there just wasn't enough action and too much like a physical comic book.

"Incredible Hulk" is just a better-paced and more engrossing film overall to me. I really hope Norton agrees to do an Avengers movie... that would be sweet.

This movie was actually about 1000% better than Ang Lee's version back in 2003. It had everything Ang Lee's didn't: action and a story that moved along and didn't get bogged down in background garbage. Can't wait to pick this one up.

I am picking this up next Tuesday. I already have the Iron Man BD and I liked this film, so a BD buy is a no-brainer. While the picture quality sounds slightly disappointing for a high-def release of a recent film, the audio and extras sell it for me.